Thursday, June 17, 2010

Imagine: A Genuine Palestinian-Israeli Anti-War Movement.

Most people across the globe are feeling angry and helpless about the situation in Israel and Palestine. If you are fed up - You are not alone.

Each side of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict feels the same way and disagrees with the other when interpreting everyday developments. The status quo is dangerously unsustainable. But strong consensus on both sides exists for the two-state solution.

OneVoice dares you to look beyond the excuses and recycled approaches sweeping the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and share a different vision of a region living in peace and security.

Visualizing life after the conflict has ended shows the tangible gains of a permanent resolution and compels compromise and mobilization by both sides to make the future happen now.

9 Comments:

Sounds like Monty Python. "The situation is critical. This calls for immediate meetings and consultations". I parsed their website in vain to try and find a position on *anything* other than that they support an undefined two-state solution. Their "saying what needs to be said" section said only that they intend to do a lot of leveraging, scaling up and other Dilbert-esque things. Doh. Everything that needs to be said has already been said. Israel and the Palestinians just need to jump on the damn train already. Frakking *talking* to Hamas would be a start.

Sorry but the road towards Nirvana will not be paved by Martin Indynk, Danny Devito, Saeb Erekat. The first a long time staffer with AIPAC who has supported every act of Israeli aggression on record and is the avowed political opponent of Israeli doves. The second, of course, a well known political luminary whose TV shows I've greatly enjoyed. The third I'm sad to say a discredited hackneyed part of the corrupt PA. How on earth have these characters all ended up on the honorary board?

I'm sad to say that "One Voice" represents, in my mind, a fluffy compromised downgrading of an anti occupation movement. I say "anti occupation" for a reason. I simply am unaware of any war or "conflict" where so many dead are accumulated on one side. Where a nation, a nuclear power, is in decades long contravention of international law and continues to "expand" what are colonial settlements. Where one side exercises power over the freedom of movement of all of those in the West Bank and Gaza.

In reducing the struggle to merely to a conflict "One Voice" normalizes an entire system of oppression. It's a step backwards. Such views tend to presume that the occupation (not even spoken of bu "One Voice" is a natural state of affairs, whose violence is permitted, a civilized norm meant to tame its subjects. "A non-violent struggle" therefore diverts attention from the fact that forced rule is based on the use of violence. Every soldier at a roadblock, every camera on the separation fence, every military edict, a supermarket in a settlement and an Israeli diaper factory on Palestinian land - they are all part of the nonstop violence.

As for the "two state solution" I'm aware that the vast majority of Palestinians and Israelis support such a step. And it makes sense. The problem then is that this rhetoric, as I mentioned earlier, has, at this late date, become increasingly divorced from the reality that the vast expansive colonization of the West bank enforced by soldiers, checkpoints, walls and violence is not going anywhere. It expanded under Oslo more under Barak than Likud. Bibi in the face of some pressure by Obama refused to stop the growth of new settlements. More so every single year the UN votes on a resolution calling for a settlement of the Israel/Palestine conflict on the lines of the 1967 borders and the US and Israel are always in opposition. Rejectionism exists among Palestinians too but there was and is a vast power differential between the occupied and the occupiers.

"One Voice" comes across as, at best, well intentioned and worst conniving. They are also hopelessly behind the curve. We can do better.

Terry I can hardly find any information about what this group actually does. And as much as I loved Cheers- the honorary board of directors is, as I've outlined, absurd. There's something about the NGO'ization, feel good, no substance, detached from reality on the ground approach embodied in this group that I find distasteful. You see it around a lot elsewhere. Why do you like about them? What ongoing campaigns do they conduct beyond vague appeals to a "two state solution". I'm also interested in what your personal experiences were like with "anti occupation" or,-sigh- "anti war" activists when you were in Israel/Palestine.

What a crazy ad hominem. Given you were in favour of Israel's attack on Gaza could I say that you support any act by the Israeli government to the death of every last child in Gaza-400 of them dead as part of that criminal campaign aptly described by Richard Goldstone, not too mention an array of human rights groups. I've outlined in detail my reasons why I find "One Voice" to be lacking. I don't at all think that offer a model for a movement genuinely committed to peace, reconciliation and an end to the occupation. I could, on the other hand, provide you numereable groups, both Palestinian and Israeli, not stacked with a board of directors composed of celebrities and despicable politicians. Groups that do on the ground work, take bold stands, produce and ample amount of analysis and work against both indifference, systematic oppression and hatred. That I dont like your favorite group which you've hardly defended or done much to enlighten me about doesn't constitute a sneer.

I wrote up a whole response to Ahmed's sad rant only to realize it was directed at Terry not me. I do wonder, however, about those fine groups he's talking about that do a better job than OneVoice. I have a strong suspicion that they are mainly staffed by anti-Zionist Israelis who share the same twisted worldview. Ordinary Israelis wouldn't touch them with a 10-foot barge pole.

I think Ahmed is a bit too dismissive of one voice. And I admit my shot at their website's management-speak about leveraging and visualization was cheap. Still, talk only goes so far. At some point you have to stand up for justice. Perhaps one voice, not wanting to offend either side, haven't got there yet. But since the "enough is enough" stage was 2008, I wonder at what point anything beyond consultation will happen. Perhaps they will "say what needs to be said" later on in 2010. Let's wait and see what they say before making judgement, and in the meantime encourage the dialogue.